ACQ Vol 13 no 3 2011

References Battle, D., Ed. (2002). Communication disorders in multicultural populations . Woburn, MA: Butterworth- Heinemann. Carlo, M.S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C. E., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., & White, C. E. (2004). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly , 39 (2), 188–215. Combs, M. C., Evans, C., Fletcher, T., Parra, E., & Jimenez, A. (2005). Bilingualism for the children: Implementing a dual-language program in an English-only state. Educational Policy , 19 , 701–727 Culatta, B., Reese, M., & Setzer, L. (2006). Early literacy instruction in a dual-language (Spanish-English) kindergarten. Communication Disorders Quarterly , 27 (2), 67–82. Fey, M. E. (2006). Commentary on “Making evidence- based decisions about child language intervention in schools” by Gillam and Gillam. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 37 (4), 316–319. Glogowska, M., Roulstone, S., Enderby, P., & Peters, T. (2000). Randomised controlled trial of community based speech and language therapy in preschool children. British Medical Journal , 321 (7266): 925–926. Goldstein, B. A. P. (2006). Clinical implications of research on language development and disorders in bilingual children. Topics in Language Disorders , 26 (4), 305–321. Hammer C.S., Lawrence F.R., & Miccio A.W. (2007). Bilingual children’s language abilities and early reading outcomes in Head Start and kindergarten. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 38 (3), 237-248. Hoff, E., & Place, S. (in press). Bilingual language learners. In S. L. Odom, E. Pungello, & N. Gardner-Neblett (Eds), Re-visioning the beginning: Developmental and health science contributions to infant/toddler programs for children and families living in poverty . Guilford Press. Justice, L., & Fey, M. (2004, September 21). Evidence- based practice in schools: Integrating craft and theory with science and data. The ASHA Leader . Kay-Raining Bird, E., Cleave, P., Trudeau, N., Thordardottir, E., Sutton, A., & Thorpe, A. (2005). The language abilities of bilingual children with Down syndrome. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology , 14 , 187–199. Kohnert, K., & Medina, A. (2009). Bilingual children and communication disorders: A 30-year research retrospective. Seminars in Speech and Language , 30 (4), 219–233. Kohnert, K. (2010). Bilingual children with primary language impairment: Issues, evidence and implications for clinical actions. Journal of Communication Disorders , 43 (6), 456–473. Kovarsky, D., & Curran, M. (2007). A missing voice in the discourse of evidence-based practice. Topics in Language Disorders , 27(1), 50–61. Law, J., Campbell, C., Roulstone, S., Adams, C., & Boyle, J. (2008). Mapping practice onto theory: The speech and language practitioner’s construction of receptive language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders , 43 (3), 245–263. Martin, D. (2009). Language disabilities in cultural and linguistic diversity . Bristol, UK: Multilingual Matters. Paradis, J. (2010). The interface between bilingual development and specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics , 31 (2), 227–252.

interventions. Tsybina and Eriks-Brophy (2010) cited Girolametto et al. (2001) and Robertson and Weismer (1999), finding that parent-administered interventions with monolingual children improved parent–child interaction and resulted in gains in the children’s speech complexity, vocabulary, and verbal output, and that reductions in parental stress and anxiety were benefits of family-focused intervention programs. School or preschool based systems are also possible, and recommended (Kohnert, 2010). • Other arguments are available that support the equity and culturally competent practice of bilingual intervention . The available evidence suggests that rather than bilingual children receiving equitable treatment when only the socially dominant language is targeted, they are in fact disadvantaged (see Goldstein, 2006; Kohnert, 2010; Slavin & Cheung, 200; Thordardottir, 2010, for more arguments and evidence on this point). Such an argument ignores the possible academic advantages of bilingualism, and also ignores the child’s social and cultural context and marginalises the family who may not speak the socially dominant language well, or at all. It is not consistent with the codes of ethics or scope of practice documents in SP, nor with cultural best practice (Battle, 2002; Roseberry- McKibbin, 2007). The World Health Organization’s International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF; WHO, 2001), with its emphasis on participation, and environment or contextual factors, includes the family and wider social contexts (such as church and community, which are often conducted in a home language) as an essential part of assessment and intervention practices. Ultimately, bilingualism and multiculturalism should be treated as an advantage, rather than a disadvantage. • Take a critical stance towards levels of research evidence . This evidence based review of the literature identifies the need to look for, and call for, accumulations of single-case and small-scale research with careful descriptions of participants and interventions, and qualitative research particularly on attitudes, preferences, and perceptions of both clients and professionals. Look also for evidence in related fields, such as bilingual education, cross-cultural communication, and normal communication development in complex contexts, to aid the processes of decision-making. Conclusion This column of What’s the evidence? has discussed a range of issues related to the arguments, and the evidence to be marshalled for those arguments, about a contentious area for Speech Pathology: conducting bilingual intervention in language disorders in children. The good news is that so far the results all point in one positive direction. The amount of evidence is increasing and a number of valuable reviews are appearing which are of assistance to clinicians. Using the evidence based framework motivates searching the literature and engenders confidence resulting from an in-depth grasp of evidence. This allows an evidence based, clinical bottom line to be presented in opposition to opinion and “commonsense”. It also enables clinicians to look forward to types of research they want to see, and take a critical perspective on the nature of evidence as it is currently presented. This is especially salient in areas of cultural and linguistic diversity.

153

ACQ Volume 13, Number 3 2011

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au